But, it seems, much of the 47% likely votes for him, as I tried to show.

So, of the 47% who will never vote for a Republican, much of them likely voted for him. Interesting.

He doesn't know what you're talking about, because he never listened to what Romney actually said -- only what they twisted it into (in much the same way many conservatives were led to believe Obama's "clinging to their bibles and guns" comment was an indication he was going to 'come take their guns' or make abortion a casual, easily available thing).

I think you're missing the point entirely, the 47% comments show that Romney is a lousy politician, would Ronald Reagan have said something like that? Even if he thinks it, it was stupid to say it. The Democrats painted Romney as an out of touch 1% guy who didn't give a crap about ordinary people, then he opened his mouth and scored a massive own goal.

If you're running for President you need to think about the implications of what you say before you open your mouth. I think it's pretty sad in a country of 300 million it came down to a choice of Romney or Obama._________________In the land of the free you are only one party away from dictatorship at any time.

You can't help being a dick, can you? You'd rather ramble on about Obama and say stuff like "chocolate Jesus"._________________In the land of the free you are only one party away from dictatorship at any time.

But, it seems, much of the 47% likely votes for him, as I tried to show.

So, of the 47% who will never vote for a Republican, much of them likely voted for him. Interesting.

He doesn't know what you're talking about, because he never listened to what Romney actually said -- only what they twisted it into (in much the same way many conservatives were led to believe Obama's "clinging to their bibles and guns" comment was an indication he was going to 'come take their guns' or make abortion a casual, easily available thing).

I quoted what Romney said above. But you are right. words can be twisted. wait a sec...

I just listened to it. the quote seems pretty faithful to what he said.

What is the definition of the 47%? As I said above, I am taking it to be set of people not paying any income tax NOT the set of people who won't vote republican. Of course, he wants to explain why such a sorry group won't vote republican, not that non-republican voters are non tax payers (obviously false). Romney goes on to explain why that 47% is going to the president (freebees, welfare etc).

So, pjp, i think your logic is backwards.

Bonekracker wrote:

What group? Part of the problem is that he conflates and blurs lines, and another part of the problem is that the people reporting about it do the same. Before you know it, you've got Democrat ads where they're equating what he said to an attack on soldiers, retired people, and police officers.

I think the group to which he refers is clear.

The comment has a whole host of problems. For one thing, it doesn't seem like it can be defended (how does he know how they vote?) and a demographic analysis suggests otherwise. But another thing, it was a stupid thing to say politically even if it was true.

And I think juniper is full of crap. The group to which he was referring is the 47% who were already committed to voting for Obama. He was saying that he's not going to waste campaign resources trying to change the minds of those people. One can argue that he mis-characterized that group, generalizing them as being entitlement-focused, but one cannot be intellectually honest and claim that he was referring not to those already committed to voting for Romney but to some other group (such as the bottom 47 of incomes, or everybody who gets a government check, etc.).

His words were taken out of context and twisted, just like Obama's comments in his private fundraiser (about "bibles and guns") were taken out of context and twisted. That's probably where Jimmy Carter, Jr. got the idea to sneak into the fundraiser and secretly take video.

I don't think juniper trolls, but I do think he is having a difficult time seeing (or maybe accepting?) the intent of the message. People "of the Left" often seem to have difficulty with anything "of the Right," and are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt they expect for their side._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

In Europe we see Obama as a conservative. We all were astonished to see the opposition candidate reached nearly half the vote by just shouting some 30 years old Reagonomics. All of it vapourware we know, because: You are only able to apply the Reagan recipe exactly one time!

We wish for an american opposition in touch with reality. Otherwise the USA gets to the point to be unreliable and feared _________________fun2gen2

And I think juniper is full of crap. The group to which he was referring is the 47% who were already committed to voting for Obama. He was saying that he's not going to waste campaign resources trying to change the minds of those people. One can argue that he mis-characterized that group, generalizing them as being entitlement-focused, but one cannot be intellectually honest and claim that he was referring not to those already committed to voting for Romney but to some other group (such as the bottom 47 of incomes, or everybody who gets a government check, etc.).

His words were taken out of context and twisted, just like Obama's comments in his private fundraiser (about "bibles and guns") were taken out of context and twisted. That's probably where Jimmy Carter, Jr. got the idea to sneak into the fundraiser and secretly take video.

juniper is either being a troll, or he is too brainwashed to see.

Let's try and evaluate who is full of crap.

First: does it matter what defines the 47%? sort of. Let's assume for now it is ambiguous. He is certainly equating all those different groups (obama voters, entitlement people, no tax people etc etc). so that is just plain wrong. I am sure you can easily show that there is far from perfect correlation between these groups.

Second: Let's try and answer who defines this group. the hint is obviously the number 47. This clearly is not defined by "people voting obama". how could it? Obama's poll numbers fluctuated quite a bit, and I don't know for how long it was 47%. Certainly, it isn't common knowledge that 47 is his core group of supporters (if true, Romney would be dead from the start). However, according to various stats released by the tax policy centre, 47% is the number of people who don't pay income tax. this group is clearly not defined by the other descriptions he gave (unless he is referring to some poll we haven't heard about).

third: it doesn't matter really. I think BK is right. He was being sloppy either intentionally or not (probably intentionally, i think he is smarter than that). but whatever. he basically called close to half the population losers who are going to vote the opposition. at best that makes him big time asshole. at worst, it makes him a big time asshole and a shitty politician.

I don't think juniper trolls, but I do think he is having a difficult time seeing (or maybe accepting?) the intent of the message. People "of the Left" often seem to have difficulty with anything "of the Right," and are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt they expect for their side.

And I think juniper is full of crap. The group to which he was referring is the 47% who were already committed to voting for Obama. He was saying that he's not going to waste campaign resources trying to change the minds of those people. One can argue that he mis-characterized that group, generalizing them as being entitlement-focused, but one cannot be intellectually honest and claim that he was referring not to those already committed to voting for Romney but to some other group (such as the bottom 47 of incomes, or everybody who gets a government check, etc.).

His words were taken out of context and twisted, just like Obama's comments in his private fundraiser (about "bibles and guns") were taken out of context and twisted. That's probably where Jimmy Carter, Jr. got the idea to sneak into the fundraiser and secretly take video.

juniper is either being a troll, or he is too brainwashed to see.

Let's try and evaluate who is full of crap.

First: does it matter what defines the 47%? sort of. Let's assume for now it is ambiguous. He is certainly equating all those different groups (obama voters, entitlement people, no tax people etc etc). so that is just plain wrong. I am sure you can easily show that there is far from perfect correlation between these groups.

Second: Let's try and answer who defines this group. the hint is obviously the number 47. This clearly is not defined by "people voting obama". how could it? Obama's poll numbers fluctuated quite a bit, and I don't know for how long it was 47%. Certainly, it isn't common knowledge that 47 is his core group of supporters (if true, Romney would be dead from the start). However, according to various stats released by the tax policy centre, 47% is the number of people who don't pay income tax. this group is clearly not defined by the other descriptions he gave (unless he is referring to some poll we haven't heard about).

third: it doesn't matter really. I think BK is right. He was being sloppy either intentionally or not (probably intentionally, i think he is smarter than that). but whatever. he basically called close to half the population losers who are going to vote the opposition. at best that makes him big time asshole. at worst, it makes him a big time asshole and a shitty politician.

You are the one full of crap. 47% committed to voting for Obama early in the campaign, the other 5% he picked up were people who had indicated they were undecided at one point or other. That's where that number came from. It was Obama's approximate approval level for months. It was Obama's likely voter number for months.

If you think it came from something else, then what is it? The number of people who get money from the government? Fuck no, that number is something like 67%. The number on food stamps? No. The number who claim to be "middle class"? No. If it's not what I said it was, then where did it come from? The percentage of people with stinky fingers?

And I think juniper is full of crap. The group to which he was referring is the 47% who were already committed to voting for Obama. He was saying that he's not going to waste campaign resources trying to change the minds of those people. One can argue that he mis-characterized that group, generalizing them as being entitlement-focused, but one cannot be intellectually honest and claim that he was referring not to those already committed to voting for Romney but to some other group (such as the bottom 47 of incomes, or everybody who gets a government check, etc.).

His words were taken out of context and twisted, just like Obama's comments in his private fundraiser (about "bibles and guns") were taken out of context and twisted. That's probably where Jimmy Carter, Jr. got the idea to sneak into the fundraiser and secretly take video.

juniper is either being a troll, or he is too brainwashed to see.

Let's try and evaluate who is full of crap.

First: does it matter what defines the 47%? sort of. Let's assume for now it is ambiguous. He is certainly equating all those different groups (obama voters, entitlement people, no tax people etc etc). so that is just plain wrong. I am sure you can easily show that there is far from perfect correlation between these groups.

Second: Let's try and answer who defines this group. the hint is obviously the number 47. This clearly is not defined by "people voting obama". how could it? Obama's poll numbers fluctuated quite a bit, and I don't know for how long it was 47%. Certainly, it isn't common knowledge that 47 is his core group of supporters (if true, Romney would be dead from the start). However, according to various stats released by the tax policy centre, 47% is the number of people who don't pay income tax. this group is clearly not defined by the other descriptions he gave (unless he is referring to some poll we haven't heard about).

third: it doesn't matter really. I think BK is right. He was being sloppy either intentionally or not (probably intentionally, i think he is smarter than that). but whatever. he basically called close to half the population losers who are going to vote the opposition. at best that makes him big time asshole. at worst, it makes him a big time asshole and a shitty politician.

You are the one full of crap. 47% committed to voting for Obama early in the campaign, the other 5% he picked up were people who had indicated they were undecided at one point or other. That's where that number came from. It was Obama's approximate approval level for months. It was Obama's likely voter number for months.

If you think it came from something else, then what is it? The number of people who get money from the government? Fuck no, that number is something like 67%. The number on food stamps? No. The number who claim to be "middle class"? No. If it's not what I said it was, then where did it come from? The percentage of people with stinky fingers?

I said where I thought it came from - the 47% who don't pay taxes. that's a solid number from last years taxes and I think it's been stable for a couple of years.

it doesn't matter though. It's ambiguous and it was stupid to say. It's even stupid to say if we go by your definition.

I've already said, but I'll try another approach. Those who think government is a solution will never vote Republican. Any attempt to convince them will be a lot of effort and no gain (or at least negligible). No, you don't get a free phone. No you don't get other people's money for doing nothing in return._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

If you expand that to the "net taxpayer" terminology that I use (people who pay more in taxes than the value of the government benefits and services they receive), then the number is far larger than 47%, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%, I'd say.

Can you show me any credible reference that says 47% of people pay no taxes? I doubt it.

What Romney was doing was talking about 47% of voters, who were already committed to voting for Obama, and who have supported him all along. What he did that was "stupid" (populist demagoguery would be more accurate) was to then generalize and characterize these people (the 47% who have already made up their minds to vote for Obama) as being entitlement-oriented, non-taxpaying people.

So, it does matter who the 47% are. It matters because he was indeed maligning that group of people. But the group he was maligning was, quite clearly, the people who have been die-hard Obama supporters all along, and who had already made up their minds to vote for him.

It's also important what is message was. His message was not, "there's these 47% of people out there who suck and we need to do bad things to them", or something like that. It was simply that he was not going to focus his remaining campaign resources (time, money, etc.) on trying to change the minds of those people.

His malignant comments were intended to explain why these people's minds will not be easily changed: they are invested in what they see as taking care of their own needs. If anything he said was wrong, it was that only about 60% of those already-committed Obama voters literally pay no Federal income tax, the others are brain-dead because they are locked into some other key issue or ideology he has hoodwinked them on, such as Human Rights, Global Warming, Abortion, Immigration, or any number of other things he hasn't done shit about and won't. So, yes, Romney was inaccurate, generalizing and "demagoguing" when he said, "these are people who pay no taxes", but the 47% he was talking about was those people who'd already made up their mind to vote for Obama. Was he inarticulate and blabbering and exaggerating in a very Biden-like, off-script, fashion? Absolutely. But, there is no doubt whom he was talking about. That portion of his remarks began with:

Quote:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.

The tax policy center is a democrat propaganda site. I'm not even going to open it. Try again. Almost any other source will do. (Not that they're necessarily wrong on this -- I just won't look at them, and you should not either).

The tax policy center is a democrat propaganda site. I'm not even going to open it. Try again. Almost any other source will do. (Not that they're necessarily wrong on this -- I just won't look at them, and you should not either).

Oh, and if they are right, wtf are Democrats whining about?

yeah, they made up all those numbers just to support my argument and just to hit 47%.